A mob broke into a Pakistani police station and burnt a man accused of desecrating the Koran alive, police said Saturday, in the latest violence focusing attention on the country's blasphemy laws.

The man was a traveler and had spent Thursday night at the mosque, said Maulvi Memon, the imam in the southern village of Seeta in Sindh province. The charred remains of the Koran were found the next morning.

"He was alone in the mosque during the night," Memon said. "There was no one else there to do this terrible thing."

Villagers beat the man then handed him over to police. A few hours later, a crowd of around 200 stormed the police station, dragged the man out and set him on fire, said Usman Ghani, the senior superintendent of police in Dadu district.

Ghani said around 30 people had been arrested for the murder and seven police detained for negligence.

At least 53 people have been killed in Pakistan since 1990 after being accused of blasphemy, according to the Center for Research and Security Studies, and accusations are becoming more frequent.

Blasphemy in Pakistan is punishable by death but it is not specifically defined by law. During court cases, lawyers often do not wish to repeat evidence against the accused for fear of being blasphemous themselves.

People have been arrested for just discussing or writing about Islam, making mistakes in homework or not joining protests against a film insulting Islam. In some cases, the accusers have had financial disputes with those who are accused.

Most recently, international attention focused on the case of Rimsha Masih, a Christian teenager accused of having some burnt pages of a child's exercise book quoting the Koran in a bag of rubbish she was carrying.

The case was dismissed last month after a neighbor came forward to say she was framed, possibly to chase Christians out of her neighborhood.

In the past two years, two senior Pakistani officials who suggested reforming the laws have been shot dead, one by his own bodyguard. Lawyers threw rose petals at the killer and the judge who convicted him was forced to flee the country.

I can't help but wonder why people are so worried about Iran, which looks civilized in comparison, when Pakistan exists. I mean it's more violent, less stable, and actively sponsors terrorists that actively attack America. Yet they are our ally.

I can't help but wonder why people are so worried about Iran, which looks civilized in comparison, when Pakistan exists. I mean it's more violent, less stable, and actively sponsors terrorists that actively attack America. Yet they are our ally.

I can't help but wonder why people are so worried about Iran, which looks civilized in comparison, when Pakistan exists. I mean it's more violent, less stable, and actively sponsors terrorists that actively attack America. Yet they are our ally.

Don't forget that whole nuke thing too.

Honestly there isn't a country in the world that I feel less comfortable with nukes than Pakistan. Yet Iran is a problem for Israel, so it all of a sudden becomes the number one threat to world wide peace and security. Although while we are on this subject, in terms of sponsoring terrorism, and the ideology that promotes terrorism, not to mention the billions of dollars that fund it, What state can compare to Saudi Arabia.

Interesting fact about Iran that some people might already be aware of: the Shah was a close personal friend of none other than David Rockefeller. So much so, that after he was ousted in the revolution, Rockefeller personally intervened on his behalf to force President Carter (who was one of Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission lackeys) to fly the Shah onto US territory to receive medical treatment for cancer. This directly precipitated the Iran hostage crisis that followed, and cast Rockefeller into the media spotlight. In short, it's no surprise that Iran is demonized as much as it is all these years later...

I can't help but wonder why people are so worried about Iran, which looks civilized in comparison, when Pakistan exists. I mean it's more violent, less stable, and actively sponsors terrorists that actively attack America. Yet they are our ally.

American policy long-term in Pakistan is to divide it into two or more states.

The near-term focus on Iran is not because Iran is an absolute greater threat to America - it isn't any kind of threat, absent US provocation - but because Iran is the most active in funding hostility to Israel in the region.

American interests are not what drives American policy. Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff:

Quote:

“I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing any­thing down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on.”

American Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro clarified what drives US policies:

“The test of every policy the Administration develops in the Middle East is whether it is consistent with the goal of ensuring Israel’s future as a secure, Jewish, democratic state. That is a commitment that runs as a common thread through our entire government.”

It is not useful to look at American policy in terms of American interests. Nothing makes sense if you do so.

I can't help but wonder why people are so worried about Iran, which looks civilized in comparison, when Pakistan exists. I mean it's more violent, less stable, and actively sponsors terrorists that actively attack America. Yet they are our ally.

Don't forget that whole nuke thing too.

Bucheon Bum, Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Dempsey, Mullen and Panetta assert that Iran is a rational actor and has not made the decision to pursue nuclear weapons. That's the current and former chairman of the joint chiefs and secretary of defense. Their opinion > neo-con war mongers. Yeah?

Why must I tell you people the same thing over and over again? It is very simple. Iran is 1) a rational actor and 2) not building nuclear weapons.

I can't help but wonder why people are so worried about Iran, which looks civilized in comparison, when Pakistan exists. I mean it's more violent, less stable, and actively sponsors terrorists that actively attack America. Yet they are our ally.

Don't forget that whole nuke thing too.

Bucheon Bum, Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Dempsey, Mullen and Panetta assert that Iran is a rational actor and has not made the decision to pursue nuclear weapons. That's the current and former chairman of the joint chiefs and secretary of defense. Their opinion > neo-con war mongers. Yeah?

Why must I tell you people the same thing over and over again? It is very simple. Iran is 1) a rational actor and 2) not building nuclear weapons.

I can't help but wonder why people are so worried about Iran, which looks civilized in comparison, when Pakistan exists. I mean it's more violent, less stable, and actively sponsors terrorists that actively attack America. Yet they are our ally.

Don't forget that whole nuke thing too.

Bucheon Bum, Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Dempsey, Mullen and Panetta assert that Iran is a rational actor and has not made the decision to pursue nuclear weapons. That's the current and former chairman of the joint chiefs and secretary of defense. Their opinion > neo-con war mongers. Yeah?

Why must I tell you people the same thing over and over again? It is very simple. Iran is 1) a rational actor and 2) not building nuclear weapons.

I can't help but wonder why people are so worried about Iran, which looks civilized in comparison, when Pakistan exists. I mean it's more violent, less stable, and actively sponsors terrorists that actively attack America. Yet they are our ally.

Don't forget that whole nuke thing too.

Bucheon Bum, Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Dempsey, Mullen and Panetta assert that Iran is a rational actor and has not made the decision to pursue nuclear weapons. That's the current and former chairman of the joint chiefs and secretary of defense. Their opinion > neo-con war mongers. Yeah?

Why must I tell you people the same thing over and over again? It is very simple. Iran is 1) a rational actor and 2) not building nuclear weapons.

I can't help but wonder why people are so worried about Iran, which looks civilized in comparison, when Pakistan exists. I mean it's more violent, less stable, and actively sponsors terrorists that actively attack America. Yet they are our ally.

Don't forget that whole nuke thing too.

Honestly there isn't a country in the world that I feel less comfortable with nukes than Pakistan. Yet Iran is a problem for Israel, so it all of a sudden becomes the number one threat to world wide peace and security. Although while we are on this subject, in terms of sponsoring terrorism, and the ideology that promotes terrorism, not to mention the billions of dollars that fund it, What state can compare to Saudi Arabia.

I can't help but wonder why people are so worried about Iran, which looks civilized in comparison, when Pakistan exists. I mean it's more violent, less stable, and actively sponsors terrorists that actively attack America. Yet they are our ally.

Don't forget that whole nuke thing too.

Honestly there isn't a country in the world that I feel less comfortable with nukes than Pakistan. Yet Iran is a problem for Israel, so it all of a sudden becomes the number one threat to world wide peace and security. Although while we are on this subject, in terms of sponsoring terrorism, and the ideology that promotes terrorism, not to mention the billions of dollars that fund it, What state can compare to Saudi Arabia.

Right, I feel much safer in a world with Iranian nukes than one with a nuclear armed Pakistan. I'm pretty sure that Iran will keep track of its weapons, for the sake of pride and legitimacy if nothing else. I have no faith in Pakistan to keep track of anything, even if it wants to.